Robertson supports right to intervene

Recognition of an international right to stop perpetrators from committing crimes against humanity would make sense of the “irrational" situation nations are facing over whether to remove Libyan leader
Muammar Gaddafi
, according to leading British human rights barrister
Geoffrey Robertson
, QC.

Speaking at the University of Sydney distinguished speakers program last week Mr Robertson, who is fighting the extradition to Sweden of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said some interpretations of UN Security Council resolution 1973, adopted last month, did not make sense.

The resolution invokes the doctrine of “right to protect", which recognises a right of intervention, but only if authorised by the Security Council. The resolution permits member states to protect Libyan citizens by “all necessary measures", but has been interpreted as prohibiting removal of Colonel Gaddafi, even if he is killing them.

The irrationality of the situation was illustrated in the joint newspaper article this month by US President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron, Mr Robertson said, which acknowledged the Security Council mandate was to protect civilians but not to remove Colonel Gaddafi by force, adding: “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power."

Equally irrational was the suggestion that intervention without Security Council approval was “unlawful, but nevertheless may be legitimate", as the authors of the doctrine of the right to protect had suggested, Mr Robertson said. “I think that is tantamount to saying ‘you’re guilty, but you have a very moving plea in mitigation’," he said. “It’s a fudge, and it’s not a rational way for international law to develop."

The only solution consistent with common sense was to acknowledge a “strictly limited" right of humanitarian intervention in such cases, which could be used as a “very last resort" when the Security Council was hamstrung by veto, Mr Robertson said, adding that the sooner such a right was recognised and defined, the better.

Such a right was the logical flip side of the duty to prosecute those who committed crimes against humanity, and was backed up by the wording of article 2(4) of the UN charter, he said.

“This is currently the hottest of ­topics," he said. “This is the lesson we should learn from the twin debacles of the last 15 years: the unlawful intervention in Iraq and the unlawful non-intervention in Rwanda."